- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Poor Cheney
Poor CheneyFollow
So if the guy dies, does the VP go to jail for manslaughter? 
Wasn't this guy some high-buck lawyer?
Bet he sues.
Bet he sues.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I tawt I taw a Vice Pwesident!
BLAM
I did! I did taw a Vice Pwesident!
BLAM
I did! I did taw a Vice Pwesident!
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Since when could Stormtroopers hit the broad side of a barn?
Quote:
So if the guy dies, does the VP go to jail for manslaughter?
Probably not (barring something obscure in Texas law). For voluntary manslaughter in most jurisdictions and according to the Modern Penal Code, the killing would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation. Since the victim was Cheney's friend, this was a hunting trip, and no one has claimed witnessing such provocation it's almost certainly not the case.
For involuntary manslaughter in most jurisdictions and under the MPC, the killing must have been committed with criminal negligence (the defendant was grossly negligent) or during the commission of an unlawful act (misdemeanor or felony). Although both Cheney and the victim failed to obtain a $7 stamp for their respective hunting licenses, they each only obtained a warning citation, which does not amounting to a misdemeanor or felony. As for gross negligence, there may be an argument that as a reasonably prudent person/hunter would not have fired at something they did not see while a member of the hunting party was unaccounted for, but as "hunting experts" have noted, it's customary for the absent hunter to announce himself upon return. Furthermore, gun use is an aspect of this type of hunting and accidents with guns are reasonably foreseeable. Based on the facts evidenced thus far, Cheney's actions most likely rise to the level of negligence, not gross negligence, and therefore he would probably not be liable for involuntary manslaughter.
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
Addikeys wrote:
Quote:
So if the guy dies, does the VP go to jail for manslaughter?
Probably not (barring something obscure in Texas law). For voluntary manslaughter in most jurisdictions and according to the Modern Penal Code, the killing would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation. Since the victim was Cheney's friend, this was a hunting trip, and no one has claimed witnessing such provocation it's almost certainly not the case.
For involuntary manslaughter in most jurisdictions and under the MPC, the killing must have been committed with criminal negligence (the defendant was grossly negligent) or during the commission of an unlawful act (misdemeanor or felony). Although both Cheney and the victim failed to obtain a $7 stamp for their respective hunting licenses, they each only obtained a warning citation, which does not amounting to a misdemeanor or felony. As for gross negligence, there may be an argument that as a reasonably prudent person/hunter would not have fired at something they did not see while a member of the hunting party was unaccounted for, but as "hunting experts" have noted, it's customary for the absent hunter to announce himself upon return. Furthermore, gun use is an aspect of this type of hunting and accidents with guns are reasonably foreseeable. Based on the facts evidenced thus far, Cheney's actions most likely rise to the level of negligence, not gross negligence, and therefore he would probably not be liable for involuntary manslaughter.
Quote:
For involuntary manslaughter in most jurisdictions and under the MPC, the killing must have been committed with criminal negligence (the defendant was grossly negligent) or during the commission of an unlawful act (misdemeanor or felony). Although both Cheney and the victim failed to obtain a $7 stamp for their respective hunting licenses, they each only obtained a warning citation, which does not amounting to a misdemeanor or felony. As for gross negligence, there may be an argument that as a reasonably prudent person/hunter would not have fired at something they did not see while a member of the hunting party was unaccounted for, but as "hunting experts" have noted, it's customary for the absent hunter to announce himself upon return. Furthermore, gun use is an aspect of this type of hunting and accidents with guns are reasonably foreseeable. Based on the facts evidenced thus far, Cheney's actions most likely rise to the level of negligence, not gross negligence, and therefore he would probably not be liable for involuntary manslaughter.
Shooting someone in the face at 30 yards IS criminally negligent. No, it doesn't take a hunting expert to know that. I probably could qualify, but the fact is that a 4 year old can tell you that shooting someone in the face is wrong. <Insert joke about how your mother didn't object>
WOULD he go to jail? Likely not. Was he criminally negligent? If he were some poor guy who nailed a lawyer in the face at 30 yards with a shotgun blast on a hunt, where do you think he'd be sitting right now?
30 yards is mighty close to get sprayed. Sprayed isn;t the word at 30 yards. Blasted is more like it. 80 yards is sprayed. 60 yards will often break the skin.
Why yes, I HAVE been sprayed. The best solution, in my experience, is to immediately return fire. It explains to the offending party why you are upset in a way that only flying pieces of metal can. That, and don't go hunting with people like that in the first place. If you find that you're out with one, send them home or just leave yourself. If not, you could wind up blasted in the face at 30 yards.
Quote:
Shooting someone in the face at 30 yards IS criminally negligent.
It seems that the argument you are trying to make is that (aside from legal defenses) if anytime a defendant shoots someone 30 yards away, (whether in the face or not) then he is criminally negligent. However, that is a strict liability standard (such as statutory rape) not a negligence standard. Cases involving negligence, such as this one involve an examination of the totality of the circumstances and are done ad hoc.
A person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, where such failure is a substantial deviation from the standard of care. (See generally MPC). To determine whether a person acted negligently, an objective standard is used. (Id.) However, it is not just a reasonable person standard that is used in torts. The defendant must have taken a very unreasonable risk. (Id.) [note the Texas statute is slightly different]. Some examples of gross negligence include driving or hunting while voluntarily intoxicated.
The question is whether Cheney was aware, or should have been aware of Whittington's presence. The known facts indicate that either Whittington was hidden from Cheney's view or Cheney didn't see him. There are no facts revealing that Cheney new the Whittington was located in the direction of the shot or that Cheney saw him. There are also no facts indicating that Cheney mistook Whittington for a bird. Barring new facts, it is highly unlikely that this was anything more than a hunting accident.
Furthermore, even if Whittington were to die and Cheney were to be charged with involuntary manslaughter, he has the defense of mistake or ignorance of fact. If mistake is offered to disprove criminal (gross) negligence, it must have been reasonable mistake or ignorance. (Id.) In this case and based on the facts, Cheney could claim he did not see the Whittington as he was covered by brush or trees. Also, he could claim that he was ignorant of the fact that Whittington was in his line of fire.
Whatever the case, the above analysis is based on the available facts. Obviously, if it is determined that Cheney saw Whittington and still shot him or that Cheney was aware or should have been aware that Whittington was in that direction, criminal liability is much easier to prove. Furthermore, if Cheney was drunk at the time, which some have suggested since he didn’t speak to the police until the next day, liability would be pretty easy to prove.
Edited, Wed Feb 15 17:24:45 2006 by Addikeys for grammar
Edited, Wed Feb 15 17:24:47 2006 by Addikeys
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
Birdshot. 30 yards is a pretty significant spread. Sprayed is the correct term. At that range, birdshot will break the skin in spots, but isn't going to do any significant physical damage to a human sized target.
And it wasn't a heart attack. He had an irregular heartbeat, which did not cause any heart muscle damage as implied by the term "heart attack". While I'm sure some official at the hospital did indeed use the term when asked, that's most likely because the technical term for what he suffered isn't understood by most people. It's not anything like what you think a heart attack is.
It's staggering the degree to which the media is trying desperately to turn this into something much more significant then it is. He was hunting with some friends. There was an accident. They called an emergency team and got the injured guy medical care. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary about all of it.
What I really loved hearing today was some talking head spouting off about how the "authorities" were not informed of the incident for 18 hours. Um.. The "media" wasn't informed for 18 hours. Since when did the media become the authorities and somehow we're all required to alert them when something happens?
Sheesh?
And it wasn't a heart attack. He had an irregular heartbeat, which did not cause any heart muscle damage as implied by the term "heart attack". While I'm sure some official at the hospital did indeed use the term when asked, that's most likely because the technical term for what he suffered isn't understood by most people. It's not anything like what you think a heart attack is.
It's staggering the degree to which the media is trying desperately to turn this into something much more significant then it is. He was hunting with some friends. There was an accident. They called an emergency team and got the injured guy medical care. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary about all of it.
What I really loved hearing today was some talking head spouting off about how the "authorities" were not informed of the incident for 18 hours. Um.. The "media" wasn't informed for 18 hours. Since when did the media become the authorities and somehow we're all required to alert them when something happens?
Sheesh?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
What I really loved hearing today was some talking head spouting off about how the "authorities" were not informed
First off, who are you talking about, because that's not what the big deal is:
Quote:
Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said that about an hour after Cheney shot Whittington, the head of the Secret Service's local office called the Kenedy County sheriff to report the accident. “They made arrangements at the sheriff's request to have deputies come out and interview the vice president the following morning at 8 a.m. and that indeed did happen,†Zahren said.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060214-0016-cheney.html
This is pretty funny:
Quote:
Birdshot. 30 yards is a pretty significant spread. Sprayed is the correct term. At that range, birdshot will break the skin in spots, but isn't going to do any significant physical damage to a human sized target.
I would defer to TStephens if I were you:
Quote:
30 yards is mighty close to get sprayed. Sprayed isn;t the word at 30 yards. Blasted is more like it. 80 yards is sprayed. 60 yards will often break the skin.
Why yes, I HAVE been sprayed.
Why yes, I HAVE been sprayed.
This is even funnier:
Quote:
Nothing particularly out of the ordinary about all of it.
Uh...it's the Vice President of the US. It's a pretty big deal. If it's discovered that he was drinking at the time of the accident, then it's a very big deal. It begs the question why he wasn't interviewed soon after the accident.
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
Quote:
And it wasn't a heart attack. He had an irregular heartbeat, which did not cause any heart muscle damage as implied by the term "heart attack". While I'm sure some official at the hospital did indeed use the term when asked, that's most likely because the technical term for what he suffered isn't understood by most people. It's not anything like what you think a heart attack is.
It's staggering the degree to which the media is trying desperately to turn this into something much more significant then it is.
It's staggering the degree to which the media is trying desperately to turn this into something much more significant then it is.
You are a misinformed fool.
That is all.
Gbaji wrote:
Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick Gbaji, please say you're not going to argue the term "heart attack", like it's weapons of mass destruction or rape.
It's not significant?
More like it's downright fu[/u]cking hilarious. Hilarious to everyone, except the Whittingtons, **** Cheney and his staff, Scott 'Scooter' Mclellan and Hard "R's" such as yourself who waste time defending the never ending series of P.R. gaffes this administration seems to find themselves in.
Seriously though, there is a lesson to be learned here.
Never mix, Dewars, shotguns, lobbyists and quail hunting unless it's an N.R.A. convention.
Quote:
And it wasn't a heart attack. He had an irregular heartbeat, which did not cause any heart muscle damage as implied by the term "heart attack". While I'm sure some official at the hospital did indeed use the term when asked, that's most likely because the technical term for what he suffered isn't understood by most people. It's not anything like what you think a heart attack is.
Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick Gbaji, please say you're not going to argue the term "heart attack", like it's weapons of mass destruction or rape.
Quote:
It's staggering the degree to which the media is trying desperately to turn this into something much more significant then it is. He was hunting with some friends. There was an accident. They called an emergency team and got the injured guy medical care. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary about all of it.
It's not significant?
More like it's downright fu[/u]cking hilarious. Hilarious to everyone, except the Whittingtons, **** Cheney and his staff, Scott 'Scooter' Mclellan and Hard "R's" such as yourself who waste time defending the never ending series of P.R. gaffes this administration seems to find themselves in.
Seriously though, there is a lesson to be learned here.
Never mix, Dewars, shotguns, lobbyists and quail hunting unless it's an N.R.A. convention.
One of the top five rules of any rough-shooter is that unless you absolutely know exactly where your fellow hunters are, you don't shoot.
Like we needed any more proof that the man is an c[i][/i]unt
Like we needed any more proof that the man is an c[i][/i]unt
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Well, it's correct that it isn't a "heart attack" in the usual sense, because in the usual sense a "heart attack" isn't caused by a SHOTGUN PELLET IN THE FU[i][/i]CKING HEART.
There. Glad I could help clear that up.
There. Glad I could help clear that up.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Gbaji = Cliff Claven
A lot of facts and not a fu[/b]cking clue.
Choke and die you piece of dog sh[b]it.
A lot of facts and not a fu[/b]cking clue.
Choke and die you piece of dog sh[b]it.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Addikeys wrote:
Quote:
What I really loved hearing today was some talking head spouting off about how the "authorities" were not informed
First off, who are you talking about, because that's not what the big deal is:
Quote:
Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said that about an hour after Cheney shot Whittington, the head of the Secret Service's local office called the Kenedy County sheriff to report the accident. “They made arrangements at the sheriff's request to have deputies come out and interview the vice president the following morning at 8 a.m. and that indeed did happen,†Zahren said.
I was talking about the wild claims floating around that there was initially an attempt to cover up the story and so "authorities" were not informed for 18 hours.
The tin-foil hat people have literally been working overtime and continually changed their theories as actual facts debunk the last one. First it was him trying to get away will killing someone. But the victim is a close friend. Then it was that he dididn't notify authorities (because the media assumed that since they didn't learn for 18 hours, that must have meant that no one knew). But that was quickly debunked. Now, they're going for the "he was drinking" angle, despite the fact that Cheney doesn't drink often in social situations, much less while handling a firearm. Heh. And let's toss in that 7 dollar stamp thing they didn't know to fill out while we're at it.
I guess the problem is that it's aimless attempts to create a conspiracy. What's the motive here folks? It was an accident. Trying to turn it into anything more then that is just plain silly.
I really love that Sen. Kennedy was apparently making hay about the whole deal earlier today with Sen. Clinton. The last person who should be even hinting at suspicious circumstances is that guy...
Quote:
This is pretty funny:
I would defer to TStephens if I were you:
Quote:
Birdshot. 30 yards is a pretty significant spread. Sprayed is the correct term. At that range, birdshot will break the skin in spots, but isn't going to do any significant physical damage to a human sized target.
I would defer to TStephens if I were you:
Quote:
30 yards is mighty close to get sprayed. Sprayed isn;t the word at 30 yards. Blasted is more like it. 80 yards is sprayed. 60 yards will often break the skin.
Why yes, I HAVE been sprayed.
Why yes, I HAVE been sprayed.
Buckshot at 30 yards is seriously dangerous. Larger gauge shot is dangerous period. Birdshot at 30 yards is dangerous, but in terms of scale not that likely to cause death in a human sized target. The whole reason birdshot is used it to spread out the shot to increase the chance of hitting, and to reduce the total damage done to the bird (you want just enough to kill it, but not so much as to destroy the meat).
The fact that TStephens concludes his statement with "I HAVE been sprayed" and yet he's clearly alive and whole would seem to indicate that it's not nearly on the same scale of danger as other firearm injuries.
Quote:
This is even funnier:
Uh...it's the Vice President of the US. It's a pretty big deal. If it's discovered that he was drinking at the time of the accident, then it's a very big deal. It begs the question why he wasn't interviewed soon after the accident.
Quote:
Nothing particularly out of the ordinary about all of it.
Uh...it's the Vice President of the US. It's a pretty big deal. If it's discovered that he was drinking at the time of the accident, then it's a very big deal. It begs the question why he wasn't interviewed soon after the accident.
Yup. Following the herd I see. Because he might have been drinking, he must have something to hide, right? Beautiful logic there...
It's not like he was at a party, crashed his car off a bridge, left someone in the car to die, and didn't ever contact any police or medical teams at all. See... That might be something that a politician should have to account for, wouldn't you agree?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Bhodi wrote:
Gbaji = Cliff Claven
A lot of facts and not a ******* clue.
Choke and die you piece of dog ****.
A lot of facts and not a ******* clue.
Choke and die you piece of dog ****.
Hey hey now, let's be fair. I'd at least have a pint with old Cliff.
I see that you are now an expert on bird shot.
The fact is, Cheney wasn't interviewed by the authorities and wasn't allowed to be interviewed until the next day. Believe whatever you want. Believe it's a conspiracy. Don't believe it's a conspiracy. Believe that people that believe it's a conspiracy are wrong. Or, don't believe that people that believe it's a conspiracy are wrong. Your assertions don't change any of the facts or answer any unanswered questions. Your “it’s not a conspiracy because people say it’s a conspiracy†argument is beyond pathetic.
First, that assertion is irrelevant. Second, I said "if it's discovered that he had been drinking." Third, what do you mean by "often"? Fourth, what do you mean by “angle?†Is that a word you use for lie? Fifth, that's not what Cheney said in his interview (see Prof Klyia’s link above).
According to Cheney, he at least had something to drink at lunch prior to the accident. Does that mean he only had 1 or is it possible that he had more? Is the time frame of the statement completely true or did he drink closer in time to the accident? Again, it begs the question, why was there a delay in interviewing the man? Considering Katharine Armstrong's changing story (that no one drank any alcohol, that there may have been beer, that she doesn't think she saw Cheney drink), these questions should be investigated as different answers shift his liability into the category of criminal negligence.
"Might"??? This "analogy" has no bearing on this discussion and makes absolutely no sense. Nice try.
What's that mean? You haven't read any of my earlier posts have you? I said it raised a question. Learn to read before you say something stupid.
Quote:
I guess the problem is that it's aimless attempts to create a conspiracy.
The fact is, Cheney wasn't interviewed by the authorities and wasn't allowed to be interviewed until the next day. Believe whatever you want. Believe it's a conspiracy. Don't believe it's a conspiracy. Believe that people that believe it's a conspiracy are wrong. Or, don't believe that people that believe it's a conspiracy are wrong. Your assertions don't change any of the facts or answer any unanswered questions. Your “it’s not a conspiracy because people say it’s a conspiracy†argument is beyond pathetic.
Quote:
Now, they're going for the "he was drinking" angle, despite the fact that Cheney doesn't drink often in social situations, much less while handling a firearm.
First, that assertion is irrelevant. Second, I said "if it's discovered that he had been drinking." Third, what do you mean by "often"? Fourth, what do you mean by “angle?†Is that a word you use for lie? Fifth, that's not what Cheney said in his interview (see Prof Klyia’s link above).
According to Cheney, he at least had something to drink at lunch prior to the accident. Does that mean he only had 1 or is it possible that he had more? Is the time frame of the statement completely true or did he drink closer in time to the accident? Again, it begs the question, why was there a delay in interviewing the man? Considering Katharine Armstrong's changing story (that no one drank any alcohol, that there may have been beer, that she doesn't think she saw Cheney drink), these questions should be investigated as different answers shift his liability into the category of criminal negligence.
Quote:
It's not like he was at a party, crashed his car off a bridge, left someone in the car to die, and didn't ever contact any police or medical teams at all. See... That might be something that a politician should have to account for, wouldn't you agree?
"Might"??? This "analogy" has no bearing on this discussion and makes absolutely no sense. Nice try.
Quote:
Following the herd I see.
What's that mean? You haven't read any of my earlier posts have you? I said it raised a question. Learn to read before you say something stupid.
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
If a major Republican politician drove a tank through the wall of Gbaji's house, murdered his family with a hunting knife, then proceeded to defecate on the resulting mess, Gbaji would probably argue that they poor guy's just having a bad day and none of this would have ever happened if Clinton hadn't gotten 8 years in the whitehouse. Fuc[/i]king Democrats.
[i]Edited, Thu Feb 16 00:21:00 2006 by CAustin
[i]Edited, Thu Feb 16 00:21:00 2006 by CAustin
16 posts
If the guy he shot died, no one would blame Cheney. Heck, he has already been cleared of all responsibility.
Electric Chair?
Electric Chair?
Quote:
Well, it's correct that it isn't a "heart attack" in the usual sense, because in the usual sense a "heart attack" isn't caused by a SHOTGUN PELLET IN THE ******* HEART.
Oh, come on. It's only one pellet lodged in his heart and they're small, anyway. The other 199 pellets missed his heart entirely!
Pinko Liberals always tryin' to make sumptin' outta nuttin'.
BTW, in Ohio Cheney would have committed a criminal offense facing a maximum sentence of six years in jail.
The worst shotgun accident I ever experienced was getting a bad break shooting skeet...the pigeon changed course and shattered off my forehead. Ouch. And yes, it was funny as hell, too.
Gbaji wrote:
Too much text for me to bother reading
uh...I disagree...i think...maybe...
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning
Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
Recent Visitors: 187
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (187)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Poor Cheney
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC